Sri Damodarlal Badruka vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances with

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

Section 54 F (3) of the Act. It is not in dispute that she paid the long term capital gains tax computed on the above basis. 7. The return was picked up for scrutiny and on 18th March, 1996 the ITA No. 299/2003 Page 3 of 5 Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order in which, after setting

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

253 of the Act before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench “A” was heard along with the cross appeals filed by the Revenue. By common order dated 25.9.2001, the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The learned Tribunal held that no distinction can be made of income earned from SLR securities

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

253 of the Act before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench “A” was heard along with the cross appeals filed by the Revenue. By common order dated 25.9.2001, the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The learned Tribunal held that no distinction can be made of income earned from SLR securities

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

253 of the Act before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench “A” was heard along with the cross appeals filed by the Revenue. By common order dated 25.9.2001, the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The learned Tribunal held that no distinction can be made of income earned from SLR securities

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

253 of the Act before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench “A” was heard along with the cross appeals filed by the Revenue. By common order dated 25.9.2001, the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The learned Tribunal held that no distinction can be made of income earned from SLR securities

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

gains of business or profession". 9. Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (ITA 131/2010) decided on July 9, 2013, had held as under:- “7. The aforesaid distinction is relevant when we examine and refers to the definition of „previous year‟. Following the said judgment, in the case of CIT v. L.G. Electronic (India

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

253(SC) 8. The counsel analyzed various provisions of the Uttar Pradesh (UP) subsidy scheme to say that the earlier scheme of 1982 was expanded in 1985 ITA 315/2003 & connected cases Page 9 of 27 to promote industrial development in the State. Thereafter, in the year 1990, various elements of the existing scheme were subsumed and a new subsidy regime

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became